The collection of people who call themselves atheists is sufficiently heterogeneous that they have no unifying dogma. As individuals, they tend to reject the hypothesis that a deity exists. The strength of that rejection can be from very mild to very strong. There is certainly no hierarchical clergy that controls this “herd-of-cats”. This lack of organization, dogma, and “clergy” protects the individual atheist from being lumped together with others into a specific “ism”.

I imagine you expect me to list all the different types of Atheism now.

First “implicit atheism” which we can describe as an unconscious absence of theistic belief. (i.e: A newborn child.) By definition, if you’ve never heard of God, then you are atheist. (d’Holbach, 1772)

Second is the more “explicit atheism” which we can call a conscious disbelief; the absence, not of knowledge, but of allegience to a God or gods.

There are, undoubtedly, other types of atheism, where the the probability of “God exists” is questioned individually.

To make my point, I agree with you. The lack of organization, dogma, and “clergy” protect individual atheist from being categorized under the idea of macro-atheism, but, then it is THAT individual’s atheism that is in question; of which there will be no answer for accountability.

If you are an atheist, you know what you believe, and if you’re not an atheist, you know nothing about it. If you want to know more, talk directly with an atheist, and you may know something about what that one atheist thinks.

I realize that because atheists don’t have the “luxury” of doing God’s will, that they take account for their actions themselves, apart from any unified organization. My bigger argument is of their allegience, not to a God, but to a natural, answer-seeking foundation, if this is what it is. I may be digging too deep into a website’s background, but, they have a criteria for distinguishing the atheist, from the religious, thus leading them to create contrast and comparison between the two. This requires that the definition be stated, rather than implied.

In which case, each two-liner, is a statement, then, not of allegiance anymore, but of accountability.

Before i make my next statement, it is not entirely called for to define atheism, specifically, in order to account for its doings. Mainly that it was, itself, a core value in the happenings of such events. (ie, communism. There’s that “ism”again lol)
So perhaps we could debate, definition (if even possible), and THEN accountability (if even allowed.)

yea… Read the shit this website links too. 90% of them are all misunderstanding the article. Plus for all of those salem witch trial references in there you do know the whole town were agreeing with the girls who started that… So athiests also joined in. Attain knowledge before creating a website leading people to the wrong ideas.

Hi webmaster and commenters ! The page was absolutely remarkable! Lots of great know-how and brilliant ideas, both of which are really appreciated! Keep ’em coming. you all do such a great job at such Concepts. can’t tell you how much I enjoy all you do!